Opinions Jan. 25, 2012

January 25, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Timothy Long v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and being a habitual substance offender. Because the master commissioner presided at Long’s guilty plea hearing, and not at a criminal trial, she did not have the authority to enter a final judgment on Long’s sentence. Marion Superior Judge Linda Brown did not err by rejecting the master commissioner’s sentence and imposing her own sentence.

Natalie E. Murrell v. State of Indiana
Criminal. The trial court did not err by rejecting Murrell’s defense of duress. Murrell’s Class C felony conviction of attempting to provide cellular telephones to an inmate does not violate the proportionality clause of the Indiana Constitution. Remands with instructions for the trial court to correct its written sentencing order to impose concurrent sentences.

Kevin Walsh v. Chris Sweeney Construction, Inc. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms order foreclosing Chris Sweeney Construction’s mechanic’s lien on Walsh’s home, awarding Sweeny Construction unjust enrichment damages for unpaid labor services and attorney fees and denying Walsh’s counterclaims. Remands for correction of scrivener’s error.

Anthony Earl Coakley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Michael D. Perkinson, Jr. v. Kay Char Perkinson (NFP)
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of motion to correct error that challenged the trial court order denying Perkinson Jr.’s verified petition for modification of parenting time and support. Remands for further proceedings.

Jeremiah L. Hancock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to murder.

Jennifer Hutchens v. Gregory Sausaman (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms order granting custody of Hutchens’ daughter to Sausaman. Denies Sausaman’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Ryan N. Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting.

Kenneth W. Gibbs v. Indiana Parole Board (NFP)
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of Gibbs’ petition for mandate requiring the Indiana Parole Board to determine his parole eligibility based on a vote of all five board members.

Ellettsville Holdings, LLC v. Garnett D. Kinser (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Kinser on Ellettsville Holdings’ complaint for damages based upon claims of breach of the parties’ purchase agreement and breach of warranty.

Jameson Curry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting, but remands for sentence modification pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B).

James Roby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.V., and Q.M.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Anthony P. Wamue v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Dwayne Burnett v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Opportunity Enterprises, Inc. (NFP)
Agency appeal. Affirms finding that Burnett is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.